Post navigation

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

At 2 a.m. this morning, a man who law enforcement sources have identified as Omar Mir Seddique Mateen, a U.S. citizen born of Afghan parents, opened fire with an automatic weapon in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Before he was killed by police, he murdered at least 20 individuals and wounded dozens more. The death toll could rise further.

The FBI reportedly suspects that the shooter may have “leanings towards radical Islamic terrorism.” Some accounts indicate that he was, like so many so-called “lone wolves,” actually a “known wolf” – a jihadist already identified as a potential threat by authorities, but allowed to continue to operate.

Now that latitude appears to have translated into the murder and wounding of dozens of gay people, an action consistent with the teachings of the totalitarian Islamic supremacist doctrine known as sharia, which requires its adherents to hate and kill homosexuals.

A posting last night at CounterJihad.com shows that the genesis of this practice is found in a hadith which has Muhammad saying that “whomever you find doing the actions of the people of Lot, kill the one doing it, and the one it is done to.” While the authorities of Islam disagree about what is the preferred way to kill gays and lesbians – throwing them off buildings, hanging them, burning them alive – there is no question but that murdering them is sanctioned by sharia.

As it happens, in 2013, an Islamic supremacist named Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar made this point in a speech at the Husseini Islamic Center in Sanford, Florida – about 20 miles from Orlando and two hours drive from Mateen’s home in Port St. Lucie. It is unclear at this writing whether the shooter was associated with this mosque or aware of this particular exhortation to kill homosexuals. But if indeed he was a sharia-adherent Muslim, there is no doubt that he was aware that his duty was to take homophobia to its murderous extreme.

It is absolutely predictable that Muslim Brotherhood front organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will shortly denounce this act of violence, insist that it has nothing to do with Islam, and lowball any ties the perpetrator may have had to one or more Orlando area mosques. Instead, they will try to deflect attention to those they accuse of “Islamophobia” for connecting the obvious – and ominous – dots. In fact, CAIR has scheduled a press conference on Tuesday at its headquarters in Washington for the purpose of defaming American patriots who oppose the Islamist agenda and those, like the Muslim Brotherhood with its pre-violent “civilization jihad,” who are enabling violent jihadists, here and elsewhere.

The Islamic State and al Qaeda have both called for individual jihadists to use the month of Ramadan, which began on June 6th, to attack Americans in this country. This murderous act in Orlando may prove to have been inspired by such calls, or by Sheik Sekaleshfar, or simply by the tenets of sharia.

We can only hope that – whatever its inspiration – Mateen’s is the last such act of jihad in America. But for there to be any chance that will be the case, we are going to have to stop importing more jihadists, designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization (the object of pending legislation sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart), and shut down the Brotherhood’s mosques and front groups that are promoting sharia and the realization of its ultimate objective, which is – in the Brotherhood’s own words – “destroying Western civilization from within.”

As former Department of Homeland Security whistleblower and best-selling author of See Something, Say NothingPhilip Haney points out, the jihadists won’t stop trying to kill us, homosexuals and straights alike, until we stop them. And that’s what we must be about now.

“Just say ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Just say those words and you’ll win the election. Avoid those words and you’re going to lose the election.”

Please! Pretty please! Just say them. …Despite the pleas of Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time last night, Senator Corey Booker of New Jersey declined to utter the words that seem so taboo for the Democrats. Bill Maher knows, as you can see in the video below, that the refusal by the Democrats to call out terrorism for what it really is could cost them the general election this year. Despite this outspoken concern by Maher, Booker still refuses to bow to this reality.

BILL MAHER: It was a horrible attack this week in Brussels. I know what Trump’s message is. It’s a horrible message. I don’t agree with it. I don’t know what the Democrat message is on this. What is it?

COREY BOOKER: Well, first of all, I don’t want to think about one of the great threats to our country through a political lens. I want to think about what’s the American message in all of this and how are we going to defeat what we see is a determined enemy that is doing horrific things, not just to the United States, not just to Europe, we have a lot of attention on things that happened this week but just today there were people killed in Iraq at a soccer game. Can’t even go to a soccer game. In fact, ISIS has been killing more Muslims than they have been killing anybody else. And so our response has got to be what we’re doing right now which is taking their territory away from them. This ideal they have. This perverse ideal that they have of creating a Caliphate. We’re going to take their land back and we’re going to win that war in that field. But we also have to disrupt their terrorist networks and we also have to counter violent extremism at home. And so that’s not a sound bite…

The term “violent extremism” at the tail end of Booker’s rambling reply set Maher off with this:

MAHER: But see, wait. You say “violent extremism.” I’ve said this before on this show. I think the Democrats risk losing this election if they cannot put together the words “Islamic extremism” as opposed to “violent extremism.” Please just tell me that you recognize that it is a distinct threat much greater than any other violent extremist threat. You don’t really think it’s on the same order as the KKK? Are you really worried about the KKK?

BOOKER: What I’m worried about is that you begin that question by saying “the Democrats will lose if.” First of all if the Democrats lose because of how they talk about this extremism, then they’ve got more problems.

MAHER: Maybe that’s their biggest problem. Maybe that’s what will lose the election.

Later Booker attempts using standard Democrat talking points on this matter but Maher will have none of it.

BOOKER: I’m not creating a false equivalency here but since 9/11, we’ve lost 48 Americans. Boston bombings. Christian walking in to a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, massacring people.

MAHER: Christians are not trying to get a dirty bomb. That is a false equivalency.

Towards the end of the interview, Maher pleads with Booker to just say “Islamic extremism” but to no avail.

MAHER: Just say ‘Islamic terrorism.’ Just say those words and you’ll win the election. Avoid those words and you’re going to lose the election. That’s my advice.

Of course, Booker did not take his advice. Instead he stuck resolutely to the Democrat playbook of treating the terms “Islamic extremism” or “Islamic terrorism as taboo.

The European Union was first brought into being to “safeguard” world peace. Today, the employees of the EU in Brussels were told to cower in fear in their government buildings while Islamic Jihadists once again terrorized this city whose population is already nearly a quarter Muslim.

Practicing Muslims outnumber practicing Christians in Brussels. After a search for Islamic terrorists had shut down the city, its Socialist mayor complained, “We will not live under the Islamic regime.”

Brussels is the first outpost of ISIS in Europe. It is a doomed city that will be lost to Islam within our lifetimes. A Muslim terrorist attack in Brussels is as surprising as a car bombing in Baghdad.

Belgium’s home affairs minister announced last year that the government does not “have control of the situation in Molenbeek.” Jihadists rule in this Muslim neighborhood, which is just as much of an outpost of ISIS as anywhere in Syria or Iraq, just 12 minutes away from the European Parliament, 15 minutes away from the European Commission, 23 minutes away from NATO HQ and 22 minutes away from Brussels Airport; today’s target. ISIS doesn’t have to invade Brussels. It just has to take a short drive.

Last year during the European Parliament elections, Brussels became the site of the first terrorist attack by a returning ISIS fighter. The target was the Jewish Museum of Belgium. The Mayor of Brussels said that more diversity was the answer. Next year, Jihadists operating partly out of Brussels carried out a massacre of 130 people in Paris while shouting “Allahu Akbar” at each killing spree.

The dead included French, Belgians, Mexicans, Germans, Portuguese, Romanians and Chileans. The killers were all Muslims.

That is what diversity looks like now.

Over 500 Jihadis from Belgium are fighting with ISIS. There are nearly a hundred Jihadists back from the unholy wars in Syria living in Molenbeek in Brussels. They should be deported, but the EU would object. And so instead, the European Union and all of Europe remain under siege by the Jihadist next door.

The “organized and living Europe” of the EU’s founding Schuman Declaration isn’t aiding “civilization.” The EU is neither organized nor living. Instead it’s killing Europe and civilization. The dream of uniting Europe isn’t just dead. It’s a virulent cancer that routes hordes of angry young Muslim men from Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Eritrea to loot, rape and murder their way across Europe.

At the heart of the EU’s rot in Brussels are No-Go Zones controlled by Jihadists. Despite all of Belgium’s gun laws, in Molenbeek, Jihadists buy and sell at the Great Bazaar of Kalashshnikovs. The bazaar is stocked and the terrorists move in and out of Brussels thanks to the open borders of the EU.

While the EU claims to control Europe, there is no safety, security or control even in its own capital.

Even if the rest of the world only pays attention when the bombs go off and knives come out in Brussels.

When the European Union was created, the foreign-born population of Belgium consisted of some 300,000 people, most of them Italians and Greeks, in a country of over eight million. Today the foreign-born population stands at 1.4 million, much of it Muslim, with a large additional population of Muslim settlers born in Belgium. Belgium once colonized. Now it is being colonized.

The capital of the European Union will be one of the first cities in Europe to fall to the invaders.

We already know how the next part goes. The broken glass will be cleaned away. The bloody wounded will be removed out of sight. The dead will be buried. An Imam will be invited to the memorial service. Everyone will wear t-shirts printed with the latest terrorist tragedy meme. The cafes will reopen. The music will play again. Couples will forget and stroll the streets.

Bureaucrats will sit down in their glass towers and draw up plans for the future of the EU in a city that will be lost in a decade. Then they will try to ignore all the heavily armed soldiers in the streets.

Islamic terrorism is not the ultimate threat. It is the real world intruding on the progressive fantasy.

16% of young Muslim men in Belgium are willing to say that they believe that terrorism is justified. But they are only the tip of the iceberg. Support for Sharia law hovers around the 60 percent mark. The former may bomb airports or shoot up museums, but it’s the latter who will destroy the country.

On the television screens, the politicians come and go talking of “youthful despair”. But the Muslim terrorists with their guns and bombs haven’t given up. It’s the Europeans who gave up.

This is not a crisis of “hopelessness”, “integration” or any of the other excuses that politicians use to explain Islamic terrorism without dropping the dreaded I-word that invokes the fearful charge of Islamophobia. The Greeks and Italians who used to do the dirty work in Belgium were not bombing subways and museums no matter how bad the “overcrowding” and “joblessness” might be.

This is not a social problem. It is a supremacist problem.

Muslim terrorism is not caused by despair, but by hope. A Muslim suicide bomber does not die out of hopelessness, but because he hopes to impose Islam and earn 72 virgins in paradise. He shouts “Allahu Akbar”, proclaiming the supremacy of his Islamic religion over Christianity, Judaism and all the rest, as he kills his victims because he believes that a different Europe is possible. An Islamic Europe.

The latest terror attack in Brussels has been called “an attack on all of Europe.” But it’s Brussels, with the insistence on open borders and open migrant policies, that is the real attack on all of Europe.

Muslim immigration is its outcome. Muslim terrorism is the outcome of Muslim immigration.

The European Union was born out of despair. Europeans lost confidence in their own nations. They opened their borders and sat on the beach while the migrant waves washed away their future.

Brussels is where Europe’s future died. It is the first real outpost of the Islamic State in Europe. It shows us Europe’s terrible future if the invasion does not end.

There are three visions in Brussels. The vision of an eternal European Union in a doomed city that will be lost sooner than Venice sinks beneath the waves. The Islamic vision of a Caliphate rising minutes away from the ponderous headquarters of the multinational European project and the vision of independent nations and peoples protecting their own borders from the invaders for the future of their children.

Take in the sight of broken glass and bloodied bodies, frightened families fleeing through the smoke, faces covered in ash, and remember that this is the outcome of the progressive vision for Europe.

This is reality intruding into the fantasies of immigration and integration where a new multicultural Europe shines forth as a beacon from Brussels to show us a better world. These people died so that you would know the truth. They were not the first and they will not be the last.

If we do not want to end up the same way, we must end Islamic immigration before it ends us.

An attack in the Ivory Coast left 16 dead, including a young boy who was shot after begging for his life. (Warning: graphic photos at the link.)

One survivor who saw the attack unfold said: ‘They killed a child despite him kneeling down and begging. They shot a woman in the chest. They’ve killed innocent people.’

Another witness, Marcel Guy, said a man with a long beard spoke to two children in Arabic and spared the life of the one who was able to recite an Islamic prayer.

‘The Christian boy was shot and killed right in front of my eyes,’ Guy said.

The practice of asking people to recite these prayers or die is common to several Islamic terrorist organizations. In Nairobi, gunmen killed only those who could not recite the Islamic prayers: 39 died in that attack, with 150 more injured. Also in Kenya, 28 bus passengers were killed by gunmen for failing to accurately recite the Islamic prayers. In Niger, five traders were shot dead by terrorists after they were ordered to recite Koran and could not.

There is some evidence that the practice may spread to Europe. Robert Spencer reported on a sign in Sweden that threatened, “Pray to Allah or Die.” (Pictured above.) Pamela Geller reported on a similar banner in Germany that translates, “Your children will pray to Allah or die.”

Have you ever wondered what such prayer say? The American Thinkerreports:

It is crucial that Westerners discover what Muslims are saying when they recite the Islamic mandatory prayers before sharing their places of worship…. The very first Koranic chapter, considered the most exalted of all chapters, is a prayer directed to Allah asking him to keep Muslims away from the misguided path of Jews and Christians. This chapter is a necessary part of the five mandatory daily prayers, and is recited not once, but anywhere from 17 to 100 times a day by devout Muslims (or in a broader sense, 6200 to 36,500 times a year).

…

Friday prayers also include recitation of Koranic chapters 62 and 63 where Jews who reject Allah’s commandments in the Torah are loathed and compared to “the likeness of a donkey carrying books but understands them not.” Jews are told to “long for death” if they pretend to be Allah’s favorite. Nonbelievers are condemned to a state of error until Mohammed is sent by Allah to purify them “from the filth of disbelief and polytheism” with his verses or revelations from Allah. “Hypocrites” or apostates from Islam are considered enemies, “so beware of them, may Allah destroy them!”

You will need to learn to say them in Arabic if you want to try to save yourself this way. There are other alternatives than submission, however.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, always seeming to hover in the shadows whenever honest citizens and organizations try to stand up for this country, is at it again. In addition to the usual suspects – which includes pretty much anyone who disagrees with the American radical Left – SPLC has been increasingly attacking people and groups who express concern about Islamic terrorism –adding them to SPLC’s infamous “Hate Watch” list.

This now includes the Washington, DC think tank, Center for Security Policy. Widely respected in defense circles, the Center has been warning us for years about the subversive tactics being employed by the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxies to destroy our nation from within. Its veteran analysts from the defense and intelligence community seek to warn the country of the existential threat we now face from Muslim terrorists.

People all over the world have witnessed the terrorists’ handiwork, and America is now undeniably in the cross hairs. Any organization purporting to defend civil rights would not blame, much less attack, Americans for being alarmed, and would be hard pressed to explain its criticism of the Center for Security Policy.

In fact it is difficult to imagine anyone in their right minds not being alarmed. The chart below uses a list compiled by the Heritage Foundation and traces terror plots in the U.S. since 9/11/01. It is easy to see that the trend has been increasing exponentially and in 2015 went off the charts. What will happen in 2016? Already 3 terror plots have been thwarted and the FBI has over 900 pending ISIS cases in all 50 states. With the attacks in France and America, and the violent Middle East migrant invasion of Europe, how could people not be concerned?

The only true haters are the Islamists and SPLC. Americans do not need to justify their concerns over Islamic terror and its political corollary, the body of Islamic law known as shariah. Indeed, shariah is anathema to every freedom we hold dear and threatens to rob us of it before our very eyes.

If there were no reason to be concerned about Islam, it should be a simple matter for American Muslim leaders to reassure America. But instead, they denounce Americans as Islamophobic and the SPLC turns it into a nationwide vilification campaign. In gambling they call this a “tell.” When your political opponent resorts to name calling, it is because he cannot articulate a credible argument against you. So instead of arguing, he intimidates and attacks.

When an organization as prominent and powerful as the SPLC turns its guns on you, it can cost you your job, your livelihood – even your standing in the community. Not because you have done anything wrong. Not because what they say about you is true, but because a focused vilification campaign forces others to avoid you out of fear. You become what they call “radioactive.”

It is a form of psychological attack familiar to the Left. Vladimir Lenin wrote:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

Herbert Marcuse, a German Communist scholar of the Marxist Frankfurt School, formalized this notion in a 1965 essay titled Repressive Tolerance; Marcuse argued that the First Amendment was insufficient in addressing the Left’s need to be heard. In racist, imperialist, oppressive America, their message would always be ignored. It wasn’t fair, he argued. Marcuse’s answer was to shut down the opposition:

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left… Not ‘equal’ but morerepresentation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality.

While most of us have never heard of Marcuse or his theory, his idea was enthusiastically embraced by the Left. Marcuse himself was an associate of Julian Bond, an SPLC board member from its founding.Marcuse and Bond were co-founders of the leftwing newspaper In These Times. They both served on the National Conference for New Politics and were involved in other radical activism.

Marcuse’s “Liberating tolerance” found its most practical application in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which systematized the tactics of hate, ridicule and vilification to shut down opposing voices. While most leftists have memorized this tactic and we witness it every day in media and politics, I think it is the SPLC’s raison d’être.

Note that they never attempt to justify their position, because they never could. Their sole purpose is to destroy political opposition. That is why debating the Left is impossible. They are not debating. They are calculating ways to destroy you.

And if you think I exaggerate, perhaps I should quote the SPLC itself, whose spokesman Mark Potok has said, “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…”

Last Friday a Washington Post contributor penned an op-ed with the provocative title, “ISIS kidnapped my best friend. But when I met its fighters, I couldn’t hate them.” The op-ed seems intended to convey a poignant, emotional insight about the tragic human cost to everyone trapped in the hell that is ISIS-controlled territory. But the end result is moral equivalence.

Photojournalist Sebastian Meyer relates that his best friend was kidnapped in 2014 by ISIS militants. Meyer can’t say much more than that, he claims, without further endangering his friend, who presumably then is still being held captive somewhere even after all this time. Given the opportunity months later to question an ISIS captive, Meyer – eager to get some answers and some catharsis – was surprised to find himself becoming sympathetic to the fighter for having been recruited into service with the Islamic terror group at what we in the West would consider the tender age of 13.

Meyer detailed the captive fighter’s background:

Ali was born in 1995 and joined the Islamic State in 2008, at the age of 13, he told me. He was trained as an assassin and given his first mission two years later. He and three friends were sent to kill four Iraqi police officers in Mosul. The group tracked the men down, executed them with shots to the back of their heads and buried them where they fell. Ali said he had killed eight or nine men in battle, not including the five he’d beheaded.

I asked him to tell me about the peshmerga soldier whose head he cut off. In a soft, compliant voice, he told me he had pushed the Kurdish soldier belly-first onto the ground in front of him. He placed his knee in the man’s back and then severed the neck with a bayonet.

“If all of that is true,” Meyer continued, “then Ali had indeed been a dangerous terrorist, and the world is safer with him behind bars.” Actually, if all of that is true, the world is safer with Ali dead. Putting him behind bars in an Islamic country is no guarantee that he will not be released to kill again by authorities or cohorts who are sympathetic not just to Ali personally, but to the ISIS cause itself.

But when Meyer asked if the butcher had a message for the Kurdish victim’s family, the terrorist who was so brave as he executed many helpless captives broke down tearfully. This softened Meyer:

But he had also been a child soldier, a vulnerable boy coerced into becoming a terrorist. I interviewed many other fighters like him, some just 14 years old when the Islamic State came to their villages and compelled them at gunpoint to join.

Meyer does not elaborate as to how he knows that such teenage fighters were coerced at gunpoint, other than their word. Some very possibly were; it is true that a Muslim who refuses to fall in line with his fundamentalist co-religionists is likely to face threatening accusations of apostasy. But there is abundant evidence that ISIS has a flood of more-than-willing recruits from all over the world, even from the West. These recruits were not coerced at gunpoint or even necessarily indoctrinated as youths. Call me cynical – I prefer “realistic” – but what is more likely here is not that Ali feels remorse for the murders Meyer is suggesting he committed against his will, but that he regrets being captured and called on his crimes. Were he still free, it is more than likely that he would be racking up more victims rather than wracked with guilt.

Meyer concedes that “[t]he Islamic State commits despicable acts of cruelty,” but notes that “the men who carry out these crimes are not the two-dimensional caricatures they’re painted to be.” Painted by whom? Certainly not the leftist media, who reserve their caricaturizing for white males, Christians, and law-abiding gun owners. “They are human beings,” Meyer insists, “many indoctrinated at the most impressionable age and coerced into service.”

Meyer went on to say that after this revelation he felt only heartbreak, not retaliatory satisfaction, over a later photo of a dead 16-year-old terrorist.

First of all: yes, it’s heartbreaking and tragic that Islamic fundamentalists worldwide warp their children to hate Jews, nonbelievers, and apostates with a murderous intensity, and train them to act on that hatred. But let’s keep things in perspective: the real victims are the innocents who are butchered or enslaved by those youth who may be indoctrinated or who may just enjoy having their depravity legitimized by a hateful ideology. And the perpetrators may, technically speaking, be human beings, but their actions are inhuman, and that is what matters. It is perfectly just, not hateful, to feel “retaliatory satisfaction” at the death of a 16-year-old guilty of unconscionable acts of cruelty and violence. Save your heartbreak for his victims.

Second, when Meyer confesses that he cannot bring himself to hate the terrorists he met, he is missing the point. “Hate” is not the issue. Since the relativistic left has no moral center, it is incapable of making the distinction between “moral condemnation of” or “moral opposition to” and “hate.” When the right condemns Islam on moral grounds, the left calls it “hate.” When the right expresses moral opposition to, well, anything, the left calls that “hate” too. They are not the same thing. Conservatives don’t want to eradicate ISIS because they “hate” the terror group’s members or Muslims or Arabs, but because ISIS commits horrifically evil acts and must be stopped. By calling a sense of moral standards “hate,” the left is attempting to de-legitimize the right’s moral arguments and spin their objects of moral condemnation, like jihadists, into victims of the right’s “intolerance.”

Meanwhile the left never, ever labels acts of actual hatred as “hate,” which is a term the radical left has weaponized against the right. Palestinian Jew-hatred is never described as such by the left, only as, say, “resistance to occupation.” The left never calls LGBT militants’ lawfare against Christian mom-and-pop bakers as “hate.” The left created the category of “hate speech” but never finds itself guilty of it.

Sebastian Meyer does not have to hate the ISIS fighters who have held his best friend in captivity since 2014. He is even allowed to recognize the tragedy that ISIS’ indoctrination wreaks on the souls of its own. But none of this abrogates the necessity for clear-eyed perspective and moral judgment.

Mark Tapson is the editor of TruthRevolt.org and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is operating from the same playbook as President Obama when it comes to addressing the threat of global jihad. They both deny that such a religiously-based threat exists. Just like Obama, Ban Ki-moon uses the euphemism “violent extremism,” without linking it to its primary ideological source – Islam.

The global terrorist scourge is driven by Islamic supremacy and the jihadist war against the “infidels” that are embedded in sharia law. That is not to say that the jihadists are the only terrorists in the world. However, to diffuse responsibility by contending that violent extremism is found in all faiths ignores the fact that the only global terrorist network threatening our way of life today is bound together by the teachings of Islam.

In the Secretary General’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on January 15th introducing his “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,” he said that “the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.” Obama said essentially the same thing last February at his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, lamenting that it is “especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.”

Both Ban Ki-moon and President Obama omitted to say that the killers are also primarily Muslims. Moreover, they left out entirely any mention of the ongoing genocide being conducted by Muslims in the name of Allah against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East.

When I asked the spokesperson for the Secretary General why the Secretary General did not acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of global terrorists today are Islamists, the spokesperson responded that “the Secretary‑General’s focus is not on targeting or pointing finger at one ethnic group, one religious group, or people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion.”

This begs the question as to why the Secretary General took pains to assert that Muslims constitute the majority of terrorists’ victims but refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators are also Muslims.

The Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism describes what it calls the “drivers of violent extremism.” These drivers include, according to the UN document, lack of socioeconomic opportunities, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance and violations of human rights, prolonged and unresolved conflicts, radicalization in prisons, collective grievances, and exploitation of social media.

Obama offered essentially the same explanation for the growth of violent extremism put forth by Ban Ki-moon. A key problem, he said, was lack of economic opportunity that trapped people –especially young people – “in impoverished communities.”

Obama added: “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied — particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines — when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism.”

Ban Ki-moon and President Obama both have argued that Islam itself is blameless. It is, in Ban Ki-moon’s words, the “distortion and misuse of beliefs” that are to blame. At his February 2015 Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama called out what he described as “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.”

However, the truth is that Islam itself contains the seeds for the violence that is such a prominent part of jihad. Jihadists using violence as a tactic to impose Islam as the world’s only “legitimate” belief system are following the path laid down by Prophet Muhammed himself and his early followers, according to their literal words and acts.

The proposed actions to address the problem of “violent extremism,” both Ban Ki-moon and Obama agree, include better education, more opportunities for women, better governance, and respect for human rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. The UN Secretary General and President Obama base their common strategy on their shared utopian belief that peoples from every country and culture embrace a common set of “universal” human rights, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration’s preamble states: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

However, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, despite its enlightened vision of the inherent dignity and fundamental rights of all human beings, is far from being a truly universally accepted creed. Muslims reject it to the extent that it conflicts with sharia law.

While Muslim member states of the United Nations, with the notable exception of Saudi Arabia, signed the Universal Declaration, they disavow its Western, secular-based principles. Islamists refuse to be ruled by any human rights document that deviates from what they regard as the divinely-inspired sharia law.

As the Islamic response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation foreign ministers adopted The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam in 1990. After reciting a litany of human rights that it pledges to protect, the Cairo Declaration subjects all of its protections to the requirements of sharia law. “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

By making Islamic law the sole authority for defining the scope of human rights, the Muslims’ Cairo Declaration sanctions limits on freedom of expression, discrimination against non-Muslims and women, and a prohibition against a Muslim’s conversion from Islam. Such restrictions on freedoms directly contradict the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Saudi Arabia and Iran, the leading Muslim majority countries today representing the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam respectively, may be at odds with one another regarding certain sectarian and geopolitical issues. However, they both purport to govern according to sharia law, which is used to justify their religious intolerance, brutal suppression of dissent, misogyny and capital punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and homosexuality. It is Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism which has helped fuel the jihadists inside and outside of Saudi Arabia seeking to forcibly purify Islam from the influence of “infidels.” And Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, as it seeks to fulfill the vision of Ayatollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Iranian Islamic revolution, to kill the infidels and ensure “that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which he claims is reflective of a “culture of dominance.” Instead, he said “the answer is return to Islam, and recourse to Divine revelation.” He called for the use of “Islamic sources (the Quran and the Sunnah) in legal matters.” Presumably, what the Supreme Leader described as the “Islamic mode of thinking in society” would explain the Islamic Republic of Iran’s arbitrary imprisonment, torture and the killing of political dissidents and members of minority groups. The “Islamic sources in legal matters” evidently serve as the basis for the regime’s discriminatory laws against women, among other repressive laws.

In 2013, Iran was rewarded by the UN for its vows of global conquest with a seat on the General Assembly’s disarmament committee. Last year Iran was rewarded for its horrendous record of abuses against women with membership on the executive board of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. And as of January 16, 2016, Iran has been welcomed back into the international community with the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of assets worth approximately $150 billion.

The Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Lehadan, head of the Supreme Judiciary Council, expressed back in 2008 the religious intolerance that lies at the heart of the leading Sunni country’s practice of Islam: “After getting rid of the Jews in our Arab land, we must turn to the Christians. They have three options: either they convert to Islam, or leave, or pay Jizia (protection taxes).” With the help of the Islamic State and al Qaeda that receive funding from Saudi Arabia, this ambition is on its way to being realized, and even expanded to reach throughout the Middle East and beyond.

The same Saudi sheikh and head of the Supreme Judiciary Council also said: “Women who are raped by men are themselves to blame. They provoke men by the way they dress or walk.”

Last year Saudi Arabia was rewarded for its horrendous human rights record with a seat and leadership position on the UN Human Rights Council.

Coddling the leading jihad exporting countries and pretending that sharia law can ever be reconciled with so-called “universal” human rights values will render all plans of action to prevent “violent extremism” an utter failure.

The Muslim Brotherhood is to Islamic terrorism what a virus is to disease. Major terrorist leaders from the Caliph of ISIS to Arafat have the Muslim Brotherhood on their resume. And the current leader of Al Qaeda led a Muslim Brotherhood splinter terror group. But its linkages to Islamic terrorism are only a secondary aspect of the organization whose focus is on Islamizing nations through more subtle means.

Paradoxically the Brotherhood has met with far less success in the Muslim world than in the West. Its greatest victories in the Arab Spring would not have happened without Obama’s backing and its takeovers of Egypt and Tunisia were rolled back by popular uprisings while its efforts in Libya, Syria and Yemen were stymied by armed conflict with other Muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt these days. It’s also unpopular with Americans.

In one poll, 61 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 11 percent had a positive view of the Islamic supremacist organization. Only 5 percent of Americans saw the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt as a positive development.

Unfortunately Obama is at odds with the views of most Americans. The Muslim Brotherhood may have lost power in Cairo, but it still wields a great deal of power in Washington D.C. Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA have open access to the media and dominate all discussions about Islam. The MSA dominates American campuses despite its history of terror ties.

As David Horowitz has warned, “The principal institutions of Islam in this country, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, to name a few — are all fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.”

But not every country is equally willing to roll over for the Muslim Brotherhood’s hate network.

The Muslim Brotherhood headquarters was in London, but while Washington D.C. panders to the violent Islamic supremacist organization, the UK decided it did not want to host its Jihad. Last year, the British government authorized a report on the Muslim Brotherhood by veteran diplomat Sir John Jenkins. The report has been submitted to parliament and it’s making waves.

The British government report defines “aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics” as “contrary to our national interests and our national security.” It’s a striking contrast with a White House where the Muslim Brotherhood has its own revolving door and a rogue’s gallery of operatives.

Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States have been allowed to dismantle our counterterrorism training and replace it with Islamist propaganda. Even now, Obama pushes Countering Violent Extremism programs that encourage law enforcement to partner with Brotherhood front groups. Secretary of State Kerry urges including the Muslim Brotherhood in the political process.

Meanwhile the UK government has stepped forward to assert that the Muslim Brotherhood is not the solution to terrorism, instead it’s the source of the problem.

The Jenkins report rejects the “moderate” label so often slapped on the hate group by lazy media hacks. Instead it describes the Brotherhood as a clandestine group organized into a “secretive ‘cell’ structure” seeking to create a “Caliphate under sharia law” using a doctrine that allows “the use of extreme violence in the pursuit of the perfect Islamic society”. That ideology inspired “Al Qaida and its offshoots”. The most obvious offshoot to employ this Takfiri approach is ISIS.

It’s quite a contrast from the claim by Obama’s Director of National Intelligence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence”.

The British report rejects the idea that the Brotherhood is peaceful. Instead it states that it is prepared to engage in violence, but prefers “incremental change on the grounds of expediency” because it believes that the “political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete”.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not moderate or peaceful. It just thinks long term. Its endgame is the same as ISIS. It just has a slower and surer way of getting there. As fellow Islamist dictator Erdogan once said in Turkey, democracy is “a train that takes you to your destination, and then you get off.”

The British report takes a hard look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s support for Hamas and its local organizations in the UK. It notes that, “much about the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK remains secretive, including membership, fund raising and educational programmes” but that its front groups “which have claimed to represent Muslim communities” wield “an influence here which is disproportionate to their size”.

It’s a vital observation that can’t even be voiced in the Senate here, let alone in the media or the White House. It is utterly inconceivable that Obama and Hillary, who have fought wars on behalf of the Brotherhood, would ever be willing to authorize the creation of a similar report on the Brotherhood.

And yet such a report is desperately needed. The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups have hijacked our foreign policy, involved us in foreign wars, endangered our national security and undermined our ability to fight terrorism. They promote a program of mass Muslim migration while pushing anti-American agendas with the ultimate aim of destroying the Constitution and replacing it with Islamic law.

Changes are already taking places in the UK after the release of the Brotherhood report. The Board of Deputies of the Jewish community distanced itself from the Brotherhood’s Muslim Council of Britain. While the government will not currently ban the Brotherhood, Prime Minister Cameron has stated that “membership of, association with, or influence by the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism”. That may sound mild, but it should be contrasted with the position of Democrats and even some Republicans in this country that the Muslim Brotherhood is our best friend.

Prime Minister Cameron warned that the Muslim Brotherhood is “a transnational network, with links in the UK, and national organisations in and outside the Islamic world. The movement is deliberately opaque, and habitually secretive.” He stated that “it has been a rite of passage for some individuals and groups who have gone on to engage in violence and terrorism.” He concluded that aspects of its activities “run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

This is a major development not only for the UK, but for the US where any criticism of the Islamic hate network has been banished as Islamophobic. The British finding is an important weapon in our own struggle with the Brotherhood and its collaborators on the left and the right.

Cameron has warned that the UK will keep a close watch to see “whether the views and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood meet the legal test for proscription.” This is a clear warning to the Brotherhood not to abuse the hospitality of the UK or face government action. By taking this step, the UK is joining a diverse group of countries, from Egypt to the UAE to Israel, in confronting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama insists that his critics are isolated, but his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the elements that isolated his foreign policy even in the Muslim world. Western countries are beginning to wake up to the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and his CVE policy will one day go down in history as a shameless whitewashing of a violently bigoted organization that has endangered our national security.

The UK has found that the Muslim Brotherhood is a national security threat. It’s time for Republicans and Democrats to start speaking the truth about the Brotherhood.

The San Bernardino massacre was the worst terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. As the investigation continues to grow from California to Pakistan, it is clear that ISIS is a domestic threat on the homeland. Less than a month after ISIS terrorized Paris, the trans-national Islamist organization has proven to be a fully-fledged insurgency that spans the West, Middle East into Asia. Currently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has “nearly 1,000 active probes” and this past May ISIS threatened more attacks, claiming to have “71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire.”

The American public should be vigilant and keep its eyes open for possible recruits who will carry out more attacks. Two reports are excellent resources to learn of the domestic ISIS threat and the Islamist terrorist organizations recruiting methods.

Immediately after ISIS’s attack in Paris, the Threat Knowledge Group released “ISIS: The Threat to the United States” (Special Report) authored by its Chairman Dr. Sebastian Gorka and President Katherine C. Gorka. The Special Report is the strongest and most concise primer available on the domestic ISIS threat. In the Executive Summary, Dr. and Ms. Gorka shows “key evidence” that ISIS has recruits with the “intent on executing domestic attacks here in America” including the following:

82 individuals in the United States affiliating with ISIS have been interdicted by law enforcement since March 2014 (including 7 unnamed minors and 4 killed in the course of attacks).

Ali Shukri Amin, a 17 year-old Islamic State (IS) supporter from Manassas, Virginia, recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide support to ISIS, had nearly 4,000 Twitter followers, under the alias, ‘Amreeki Witness.’

Ahmad Musa Jibril, an Arab-American Islamist preacher living in Dearborn, Michigan, had 38,000 Twitter followers before his site went silent. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found that 60% of surveyed foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria followed Jibril on Twitter.

The Special Report contrasts Al Qaeda and ISIS, explaining that the evolution of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was led by Abu Masib al-Zarqawi, into ISIS. The Special Report illustrates that when on July 5, 2014 Abu Bakr al Baghdadi announced the creation of the Caliphate “he did so not from a cave and not in the dress of a military commander” making al Baghdadi “a religious leader, not just a military commander.” The Special Report, using a word cloud of Baghdadi’s speech, demonstrates that ISIS’s priorities are “Allah, the caliphate, and the ummah – the global community of Muslim believers.”

The Special Report shows ISIS’s recruiting of Americans and westerners is more successful than Al Qaeda because Syria is easily accessible as opposed to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also, ISIS casts a “much wider net” with its “slick, multi-million dollar media campaign.” Another key component to ISIS is its focus on youth which it has described as “Lions of Tomorrow” and “have set up special schools to teach the youth about Islam and military skills.” Of the 82 Americans which law enforcement has arrested, “52 (or 63%) are between the ages of 15 and 25 years old; the remaining 30 are between the ages of 26 and 47 years old.”

ISIS mostly uses peer-to-peer recruiting with 64% of the US ISIS recruits acting in 15 clusters, the largest being a group of 11 men and women from Minneapolis “who were in contact with Abdi Nur, a fellow Minnesotan who has joined ISIS in Syria.” While social media is key to recruitment ISIS has also evaded attention by using encryption devices and/or directing communications through wives “as a way to avoid detection by the U.S. intelligence.”

The Special Report gives a list of indicators of radicalization from a federal criminal complaint of an American ISS recruit that included:

Posting Facebook images of ISIL’s flag and the flag of the ISLAMIC caliphate.

Growing out one’s bear and dying it red which mimics Mohammed.

Praying five times a day.

Wearing traditional Muslim attire in place of Western clothing.

However, these changes also are difficult to use as evidence because these “are signs of increased religiosity and do not necessarily indicate radicalization.” Families are essential to deciphering whether these changes are real signs of an ISIS recruit.

Dr. and Ms. Gorka conclude their Special Report with the following common-sense steps to the “heightened threat environment”:

Stop downplaying the seriousness of the threat so that individuals and law enforcement can be properly prepared.

Recognize that ISIS is targeting youth, and do more to protect youth from radicalization. Educate those who work with youth about the indicators of radicalization. Hold parents criminally liable for not preventing their children from supporting ISIS where it can be established that they were aware of it.

Target the ideologues. Recognize the link between rhetoric that calls for death of the infidel and acts of terrorism and interrupt the flow of such communication.

Better utilize open-source intelligence.

Screen refugees because “ISIS and other terrorist groups may use the refugee track as a way to gain access to the United States with the purpose of carrying out an attack.

George Washington University’s Program on Extremism has also released a report titled “ISIS in America: From Retweets to Raqqa” (GW Report) authored by Lorenzo Vidino and Seamus Hughes. The GW Report’s Executive Summary explains that “American ISIS sympathizers are particularly active on Twitter, where they spasmodically create accounts that often get suspended in a never-ending cat-and-mouse game.” However, ISIS recruitment is not exclusively based on social media as “U.S.-based individuals initially cultivated and later strengthened their interest in ISIS’s narrative through face-to-face relationships.”

The GW report provides an in-depth analysis of the 82 law enforcement arrests. It also explains that “authorities estimate that several thousand Americans consume ISIS propaganda online creating what has been described as a ‘radicalization echo chamber,’” while showing examples of social media postings. In an ominous warning to possible future attacks, the GW Report further explains that “while American ISIS supporters tend to be male, nearly one third of the accounts examined are purportedly operated by women. Additionally, supporters broadly divided into two sets: those who locate themselves in Syria and Iraq and those still in America but aspiring to assist ISIS in a number of ways.”

The GW Report’s conclusion calls for “robust funding” to “counter violent extremism.” The GW Report next drifts into a softened approach compared to the Special Report in stopping American recruiting such as message “intervention” of ISIS recruits and allowing US citizens who have fought for ISIS abroad to return home in order to “dissuade would-be recruits.” While the GW Reports falls into the P.C clap trap, it is an excellent resourcefor legal records related to ISIS radicalization and recruitment in the United States.

It is clear that we are under a wide domestic threat by ISIS, a group which seeks to cause mayhem as opposed to Al-Qaeda like spectacular attacks. These reports provide Americans two easily accessible opportunities to educate themselves on this asymmetric threat.

One more horrific and heinous Islamic terror attack, in a long list of many others, was perpetrated against America by Chicago born Syed Farook and Pakistan born Tashfeen Malik, on December 2nd 2015 at approximately 11:00 am PT. They opened fire on a Christmas party inside the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA using modified variants of .223 AR-15s, and eighty-five rounds later, fourteen decent Americans __ mothers, fathers, sons and daughters __ lay murdered, with 21 more wounded, as many others placed desperate cellphone calls for help and thought these were their last moments of life.

The discovery of three bombs in the IRC, that failed to explode, slowed the search for the terrorists, who were initially thought to still be in the building. Five hours later, the terrorists were found and killed near their home in Redlands in a firefight, as they fired 76 rounds and the police responded with 380 rounds; in the aftermath, 2500 more rounds of ammunition and twelve more bombs wired for remote detonation, in a manner similar to the Boston bombs, were found in their home.

FBI reports reveal that Malik had passed Homeland Security screening, and she had returned with Farook from his second trip to Saudi Arabia on a K-1 “fiancee” visa and a Pakistan passport. Farook had also made a trip to Pakistan, and he had been in contact with Muslims abroad who are persons of interest to U.S. authorities; he was also in touch with islamofascists in the Los Angeles area.

Imagine the sinking feeling felt by authorities, when they discovered that Malik had pledged her allegiance to the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on Face Book, as the attack was ongoing. This made many security analysts suggest since, that she was Farook’s trainer, and she had planned from the start to meet someone online, who was willing to bring her to America, for the sole purpose of harming America.

Any logical thinking person didn’t need to hear FBI Director James Comey call this “an act of Islamic-inspired terrorism”, once news reports indicated multiple shooters were in the facility. How many cases has anyone ever witnessed of a disgruntled employee recruiting another person to help them attack a business?

On December 4th, the FBI Director announced on C-SPAN that none of Farook’s contacts “were of such significance that it raised the level of alert at the FBI.” Really? This should keep people awake at night.

Although the FBI refused to name Muzzamil Siddiqi, as one of the islamofascist “jihadists” in contact with Farook, for the New York Times’ December 3rd story, anyone following the terrorist networks knew Farook and Malik were Islamic terrorists immediately, when Hussam Ayloush, executive director for CAIR-Los Angeles, and Farhan Khan, Farook’s brother-in-law, made a disingenuous televised statement. They condemned the attack and offered “heartfelt condolences to the families and the loved ones of all those killed or injured.” Standing there beside both men and also offering empty words was Muzzamil Siddiqi, who is a known active supporter of Islamic terror in America and abroad.

Siddiqi is the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County and a former president of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood organization. He is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing plot, and he released the Muslim Brotherhood memo, ‘Civilization – Jihadist Process’, to followers in May 1991, that calls for the destruction of Western civilization from within and “sabotaging its miserable house.” One of Siddiqi’s close associates was Sheik Omar Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and, one should also note that Adam Gadhan, former spokesman for Al qaeda and fellow terrorist, is a product of the ISOC.

Siddiqi wrote in the ‘Pakistan Link’ on October 18th 1996: “We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

Adding insult to injury on December 3rd, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Reverend Welton Gaddy delivered a load of manure in their unbelievably insensitive, disgusting and despicable statements at the Muslim Advocates Annual Dinner, in the wake of the murders of fourteen Americans by Islamic terrorists. Their main concerns were focused on any possible “backlash” from the San Bernadino attack against Muslims and Muslims being “free in America”, when they should have been asking these Muslims what, if anything, they proposed to do in an effort to stop future terror attacks that emanate from the ranks of their damnable brethren __ these Sons and Daughters of Mohammed.

Why was Loretta Lynch appeasing this group of Muslims, instead of demanding they take all measures to stop the ever increasing Islamic terror attacks in America?

Why did Rev. Gaddy exclaim, “If Muslims aren’t free in America, no one is”, when fourteen Americans just had their freedom __ their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” __ taken from them?

Muslims are free in America. They just aren’t free to wantonly murder their way across America. Their rights in America end, when they act against the U.S. Constitution and their actions violate the rights of others, endangering and ending the lives of U.S. citizens.

This administration and future administrations must target Muslim communities with deep surveillance, and don’t tell America how offensive and “islamophobic” this will seem to Muslims. The cold hard reality is that Baptists, Catholics and Jews aren’t gunning down people and blowing them up, and frankly, I find Americans killed at the hands of Islamic terrorists offensive.

Maybe it’s time U.S. Muslims felt the consequences __ backlash __ from their failure or unwillingness to cut out the violent heart of the Islamic ideology. Let’s advocate the deportation of all non-citizen Muslims and refuse to allow any Muslim into America: This will not stop all acts of terror, since Muslim citizens are acting against the nation too, but perhaps it is a start for now.

I am sick of seeing Our Beloved America attacked repeatedly by these islamofascists, with barely a cough coming from the Oval Office. Obama and Attorney General Lynch aren’t protecting us from “enemies foreign and domestic” effectively and forcefully, doing just the bare minimum. Their continued denial of an Islamic terrorism problem in America is only emboldening Muslims, who hate us, and laying the groundwork for a certain devastating and massive terrorist attack, especially in light of recent successes by the Islamic State. Consequently, whether or not our communities exhibit San Bernadino’s same level of training and professionalism, all Americans must help their community stay vigilant and prepare to defend themselves or die, in the face of the next deliberate terrorist attack on our homefront, even if it entails carrying one’s personal weapon daily.

A former U.S. congressman urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to arrest him after she warned on Thursday that her office would take a more aggressive approach to those spewing anti-Muslim rhetoric.

“I think Islam has a real freaking problem, alright?” Former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh said in a video posted to his Facebook page. “There is a cancer in Islam, and if they’re not going to learn to assimilate, I don’t want them in this country.”

“You got a problem, Loretta Lynch, with me saying that? Then throw me in jail,” Walsh, a conservative talk show host, argued. “I think Islam is evil. I think Islam has a huge problem. I think most Muslims around the world are not compatible with American values. I don’t want them here.”

Walsh continued to slam Lynch in his video for the comments she made at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner one day after law enforcement officials say two people opened fire at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, leaving 14 people dead and more than one dozen injured. According to reports, the wife pledged allegiance to the Islamic State on her Facebook page just moments before the attack.

“When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,” Lynch said at the banquet. “My message not just to the Muslim community but to all Americans is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.”

Walsh, who now hosts his own radio program, served in Congress from 2011 to 2013.

In text that included some stronger language accompanying his video, which has been viewed more than 110,000 times as of Saturday morning, Walsh continued to argue that “most Muslims around the world are terrorists, support terrorism and/or support Sharia Law.”

“Any Muslim that is a terrorist or supports terrorism should be killed,” Walsh wrote. “If ‘Moderate’ Muslims don’t speak out against terrorism, they are our enemy and we should call them out and kick them out of this country.”

In last Sunday’s opening episode of Season 5 of Showtime’s terrorism show Homeland, CIA agent Peter Quinn delivers a speech that stands out as uncommon sense on a show that has largely wallowed in moral equivalence between the West and Islamic terrorism.

Quinn (played by Rupert Friend) is introduced to a room of important people as an agent on the ground in Syria for two years, including Al-Raqqah, the de facto capitol of the Islamic State. When asked if our side’s strategy is working, Quinn asks, “What strategy?” No one is able to answer him, and Quinn points out that therein lies the problem. ISIS has a strategy which includes beheadings, crucifixions, and the revival of slavery, and it all derives from “their f*cking book, the only book they ever read.”

“They’re there for one reason and one reason only,” he continues, “to die for the Caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That’s their strategy and it’s been that way since the 7th century.”

Asked what he would do, Quinn suggests 200,000 soldiers on the ground and an equal number of doctors and teachers. Told that that is not feasible and asked for another solution, Quinn says, “Hit reset — pound Raqqah into a parking lot.”

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories. There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

Upon what do you base your assertion?

Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?

Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?

Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapirodid, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Registerpoll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

Islamists are winning their war to silence critical commentary in the West about Islam. So says Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the now-infamous images of Muhammad, in his recent book, “The Tyranny of Silence.”

Whether motivated by a cowardly nature or by an obsequious desire to be nice, much of the media and the Obama administration now adhere to a common vocabulary when discussing violence motivated by Islamist theology. There is simply no reference to the theological motivations so relevant to the perpetrators of religiously inspired terror.

We are told that The Islamic State is not Islamic (rather a terrorist “jayvee team”), the Taliban is not an Islamist terrorist group (rather an “insurgency”), the Charlie Hebdo massacres were not coordinated by radical Islamists (rather “individual terrorists”), the Fort Hood murders were not acts of terror (rather “workplace violence”), the terrorist attack on our embassy in Libya was not instigated by imams preaching Islamic blasphemy laws (rather by our own exercise of free speech) and so on.

In fact, the U.S. government has purged the worlds “Islam” and “jihad,” and any language deemed “Islamophobic,” from counterterrorism training manuals, thereby neutering the ability of U.S. law enforcement to identify the motivational factors behind Islamist terrorism.

However, the ad nauseam repetition that “Islam is a religion of peace” every time a terror attack is carried out in the name of Islam no longer has any traction. Even some who, in the past, felt impelled to employ fatuous statements about the lack of Islam’s responsibility for Islamist terrorism seem recently to have constrained themselves. For instance, at a recent panel discussing the “Causes of Radicalization” at the National Press Club, Shadi Hamid of the Brookings Institution commented that he no longer feels comfortable employing this phrase. Muslims must admit that for many, terrorist violence has become Islam, he said, adding, “ISIS has emerged out of a particular context.”

No matter how much the White House wants to deny it, the Islamic State group version of Islam is very real for its crucified and decapitated victims. Saudi Arabia’s version of Islam is very much a reality for the homosexual teenagers publicly hung for defiling Wahhabi Islam. Boko Haram’s version of Islam is very real for the children slaughtered while attending schools deemed too westernized for the group’s convictions. And the Taliban’s version of Islam is very real for the women put to death for being raped or walking without a male escort, both violations of the Pushtun traditional social code of honor as encapsulated by Shariah law. These violent versions of Islam, prevalent in the Muslim world to varying degrees, must be studied, debated and taken very seriously, especially within our counterterrorism apparatus.

Nevertheless, the administration is persistent in its efforts to obscure the theological motivations of self-described Islamist terrorists. Washington’s latest use of this obfuscating tactic is its declaration that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Rather, the Taliban is an insurgency, a mere rebellion against an authority. Yet one can be a terrorist group and be engaged in acts of insurgency at the same time — the two are not mutually exclusive.

In contrast to the White House’s misleading rhetoric, both the Treasury and the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center list the Afghani Taliban as a global terrorist group, and the State Department designated the Pakistani Taliban a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The White House’s semantics appear calculated to lessen the blow as President Obama hands over Afghanistan to the Taliban, the very terrorist group that too much American blood and treasure have been spent attempting to defeat. We’re supposed to buy into Mr. Obama’s “end of conflict” narrative, except anyone sensible would acknowledge that as long as the Taliban exists, there will be violence and conflict in the region. That is because the Taliban is a terrorist group that kills innocent civilians for both religious and political purposes, and does so on a consistent basis.

The United States has effectively adopted the same policy as Qatar-funded Al-Jazeera English, which has banned the use of the terms “terrorist,” “militant” and “Islamist,” and describes terrorist attacks in the context of a geopolitical dimension rather than as having been generated by religious motivations.

Those who seek to rationalize the violence of Islamist terrorists have shifted the blame away from a literal reading of the Koran to discriminatory social polices of European societies, lack of economic opportunity, and political exclusion of Arab citizens in EU countries. Commentators on “the radicalization process” have created a sociological construct that proceeds through a pseudo-scientific progressive series of stages before a believer becomes an actor. Some apologists for these “disaffected youth,” such as John Esposito of Georgetown University, suggest that among the causative factors are the West’s support of dictators in the Mideast, American policies in the region, and, of course, perceived U.S. support for Israeli “occupation” of “Palestinian territories.”

Other more “objective” observers prefer to employ less polemical, rational reasons for the horrific acts of Islamist terror: a sense of victimhood, feelings of disenfranchisement, a search for identity, peer pressure and a deep desire for belonging. Linked with this narrative is the recently proffered concept that many of these perpetrators are only superficially conversant with Islamic theological concepts.

While such factors can contribute to the likelihood of recruitment, proffering them as the sole motivational factors in radicalization, while ignoring the theological justifications of their recruiters, is nothing more than a cop-out designed to spread a disingenuous narrative while stigmatizing the counterterrorism community for addressing the real, immediate and unique threat of Islamist terrorism.

• Brooke Goldstein is a New York City-based human rights attorney, and the founder and director of the Lawfare Project. She is the author of “Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech” (Center for Security Policy, 2011).